Meghalaya High Court
Smti. Jenorin D. Sangma vs Home (Police) on 4 August, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:814-DB
Serial No.01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.A.No.8/2024
Reserved on: 28.07.2026
Pronouncement on:04.08.2026
Smti. Jenorin D. Sangma ..... Appellant
Vs.
The State of Meghalaya, through the Commissioner &
Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of
Home (Police), Civil Secretariat, Shillong. ..... Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Ms. N.M. Kharshemlang, LAC
For the Respondent : Mr. R. Gurung, Addl.PP with
Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.PP
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)
By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the
judgment of conviction dated 14th February, 2020 and order of
sentence dated 20th February, 2020, passed by the learned
Sessions Judge/Addl.DC, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh, in
Session Case No.22 of 2017. The appellant has been convicted
Page 1 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and is
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay
fine of ₹25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo simple imprisonment for five months. The appellant
has also been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and is sentenced
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine
of ₹10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences are
directed to run concurrently.
2. Co-accused-Prabhat came to be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
However, it appears that soon after the judgment was
pronounced, he absconded and as such, we are concerned
only with the appeal filed by the appellant.
3. The prosecution case in brief is as under;
4. According to the prosecution, the appellant murdered
her husband in 2015 and thereafter, buried his body in
Chibra village on the hill side. It is further the prosecution
Page 2 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
case that on 30th January, 2017, the Pillangkatta Police
Outpost received telephonic information from Shri John D.
Sangma (PW1), headman of Iongkhuli village that the
appellant had admitted to him of killing her husband-
Dhantharu Mushahary (deceased) in 2015 and, that his dead
body was buried in Chibra village. On receipt of the said
information, the in-charge officer of Pillangkatta Police
Outpost informed the Superintendent of Police, Ri-Bhoi
District, Nongpoh, pursuant to which, the appellant came to
be arrested. During the course of investigation, the police
recorded the statements of witnesses, recorded 164 statement
of the co-accused-Prabhat (absconding), collected evidence
and thereafter, filed chargesheet against the appellant and co-
accused-Prabhat in the Court of the learned Magistrate First
Class.
5. Since one of the offences alleged i.e. Section 302 of the
IPC was triable by the Court of Sessions Court, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Thereafter, on
22nd February, 2018, the learned Sessions Judge framed
Page 3 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
charge against the appellant, to which, she pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution in support of its case examined as
many as 15 witnesses, who are as under;
1. PW1-Shri John D. Sangma
2. PW2-Smti Kristina M. Sangma
3. PW3-Dr. D.M. Momin
4. PW4-Smti. Serin Ch. Marak
5. PW5-Shri Tim M. Sangma
6. PW6-Shri Chobin J. Sangma
7. PW7-Shri Bimol Sangma
8. PW8-Shri Myntoilang Kshiar
9. PW9-Shri Phelson Pyngrope
10. PW10-Shri Jengson B. Marak
11. PW11-Smti. Danida Dehlia Syngai
12. PW12-Smti. R.M. Kharsyntiew, CJM
13. PW13-Inspector J. Rabha
14. PW14-S.I. Kamal Thapa
15. PW15-Dr. P. Suiam
7. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded
under Section 313 CrPC. The appellant did not examine any
witness. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and the prosecution,
Page 4 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
convicted the appellant and co-accused as stated aforesaid in
paragraph 1.
8. Admittedly, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial
evidence. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is no
longer res integra. In the landmark case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in
(1984) 4 SCC 116, the Apex Court has laid down the five
golden principles to be followed in a case based on
circumstantial evidence. They are;
“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established,(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to
say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.”
Page 5 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, we now
proceed to consider the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution to bring home the guilt of the appellant. The
circumstance on which reliance is placed are;
(i) extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the
appellant to some of the witnesses;
(ii) confession of co-accused-Prabhat recorded under
Section 164 CrPC; and
(iii) discovery of the dead body, at the behest of the
appellant, allegedly under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act, pursuant to which, the dead body was exhumed.
10. In order to prove the circumstance of extra-judicial
confession, the prosecution examined PW1-Shri John D.
Sangma, PW2-Smti. Kristina M. Sangma, PW4-Smti. Serin Ch.
Marak and PW5-Shri Tim M. Sangma. PW1-Shri John D.
Sangma is the first informant to whom the appellant allegedly
made an extra-judicial confession, pursuant to which, FIR was
lodged. The said witness was declared hostile right at the
Page 6 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
outset, and as such, his testimony offers no assistance
whatsoever to the prosecution.
11. PW2-Smti. Kristina M. Sangma was also examined to
prove extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to her.
In her evidence i.e., the examination-in-chief, PW2 deposed
that the appellant had come to her house and told her to take
her to the police station, as she had murdered her husband
and thrown his body; that she told her that she wanted to
surrender before the police, and as such, accompanied her to
the house of the headman of the village i.e. John D. Sangma
(PW1), who took the appellant to the Pillangkatta Police
Outpost. It has come in the cross-examination of PW2-Smti.
Kristina M. Sangma that she cannot state, whether the
appellant had committed the alleged offence of murder of her
husband, as she was not an eyewitness in the case.
12. The prosecution examined Smti. Serin Ch. Marak as
PW4. PW4 has stated that towards the end of 2017 (she does
not remember the date and month), when she was present,
she heard the appellant telling the headman that she had
Page 7 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
killed her husband, pursuant to which, she accompanied PW2
to PW1-John D. Sangma’s house, where the appellant
disclosed the same to PW1. Similar is the evidence of PW5-Tim
M. Sangma.
13. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it appears that an
extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant to these
aforesaid witnesses.
14. As far as the second circumstance is concerned, i.e.
confession made by co-accused-Prabhat to the Magistrate
under Section 164 is concerned, we find that the said
confession does not inspire confidence, nor does the said
confession, in any way point to the complicity of the appellant
in the crime. In order to prove the confession of co-accused-
Prabhat, the prosecution examined the Chief Judicial
Magistrate as PW12, who recorded the said confession. PW12-
the Chief Judicial Magistrate has in her evidence deposed that
co-accused-Prabhat in his statement recorded under Section
164 CrPC, disclosed that the appellant had called Prabhat (co-
accused), when he was asleep stating that, there was a quarrel
Page 8 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
and a fight in her house, pursuant to which, Prabhat (co-
accused) visited the house; that on reaching the appellant’s
house, he saw the body of the appellant’s husband lying on
the floor of the veranda; that the person was already dead;
that there were four boys who were sitting in the veranda
besides the dead body and drinking alcohol; that he wanted to
run home but the four boys held him; that the co-accused-
Prabhat told one “Mami” to surrender before the police, as
they had done something wrong; that those four boys told him
that they should bury the dead body and asked him to help
them or else they will beat him up; that co-accused (Prabhat)
held the dead body and buried it near the house alongwith
four boys. It appears from the evidence of PW12, that the
appellant was also produced before the Magistrate, however,
she declined to give her confessional statement.
15. Considering the aforesaid evidence, i.e. confession
allegedly made by co-accused-Prabhat, we find that there is
nothing in the said confession which pinpoints to the
complicity of the appellant in the crime. On the contrary, the
confession reveals that the dead body was lying in the
Page 9 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
veranda, when he reached the house and that there were four
boys sitting around the dead body. This evidence does not in
any way show the complicity of the appellant in the crime. To
the contrary, it raises more question with respect to who were
the four boys and what investigation the police had done with
respect to the presence of the four boys around the dead body,
which was lying in the veranda; and the disposal of the dead
body thereafter.
16. Coming to the third circumstance i.e. discovery of the
dead body at the instance of the appellant is concerned, we
find that the said evidence as has come on record is
completely flawed. First and foremost, we find that there is no
memorandum panchnama of the appellant to show that the
appellant had made any disclosure statement; that she would
show the dead body which was concealed by her. From the
evidence of the panchas and witnesses i.e., PW6 to PW11, it
appears that it is the police who showed them the spot,
pursuant to which, the body was exhumed from the said spot.
The said recovery evidence is shaky and as such, implicit
reliance cannot be placed on the same.
Page 10 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
17. As noted above, the procedure contemplated for
recording panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is
not followed and as such, it is difficult to place implicit
reliance on the evidence of the witnesses examined in support
thereof and the prosecution case, that the dead body was
discovered at the instance of the appellant under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act. In addition to the aforesaid, the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove that the dead body which was
exhumed/discovered at the instance of the appellant was that
of the appellant’s husband i.e., the deceased, inasmuch as, no
DNA report was placed on record.
18. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove two vital
circumstances qua the appellant i.e., circumstance of extra-
judicial confession and confession of the co-accused-Prabhat.
19. Thus, the only circumstance which the prosecution has
been able to prove is an alleged extra-judicial confession made
by the appellant to PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5. As far as extra-
judicial confession is concerned, the law relating to the same
Page 11 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
is well settled. The Apex Court in the case of Sahadevan &
anr v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403,
in paragraph 16 held as under:
“The principles
16. Upon a proper analysis of the abovereferred
judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the
principles which would make an extra-judicial confession
an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the
basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would
guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of
cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-
judicial confession alleged to have been made by the
accused:
i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by
itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater
care and caution.
ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be
truthful.
iii) It should inspire confidence.
iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater
credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a
chain of cogent circumstances and is further
corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of
conviction, it should not suffer from any material
discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like
any other fact and in accordance with law.”
20. Having regard to the facts as have unfolded herein
above, the evidence on record clearly shows that apart from
Page 12 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
the extra-judicial confession, there is no other circumstance
which pinpoints to the complicity of the appellant in the
alleged crime. It may be noted that the incident is of 2015,
reported in 2017. The person to whom the extra-judicial
confession was made i.e. PW1, the first informant has turned
hostile and as such, not supported the prosecution. Infact, the
prosecution has also failed to prove that the dead body was of
the deceased i.e. appellant’s husband. Thus, the prosecution
has failed to prove that the circumstances which
unequivocally point to the guilt of the appellant. Neither is the
chain of evidence complete to show that in all human
probability, it is the appellant and the appellant alone, who is
the perpetrator of the same. Infact, the police have failed to
investigate the role of the four persons sitting near the dead
body, as disclosed by co-accused-Prabhat in his 164
statement.
21. In this view of the matter, we find it difficult to sustain
the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant. The
appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions
Page 13 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
Judge/Addl.DC, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh, in Session Case
No.22 of 2017, is quashed and set aside.
22. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required
in any other case. Fine, if any, deposited to be refunded to the
appellant.
23. As far as the recommendation made to the Secretary,
DLSA, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh by the trial court to award
compensation of ₹3 lakhs in the ratio of 2:1 to the custodian of
the minor children of the deceased victim (L) Dhantaru
Mushahary under the Victim Compensation Scheme, we direct
the Secretary, DLSA to submit a report whether any such
compensation has been awarded to the minor children of the
deceased victim (L) Dhantaru Mushahary. The Secretary,
DLSA to submit a report to this Court within eight weeks from
today.
24. Registry to forward/communicate this order to the
Secretary, DLSA, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh by e-mail/Fax
to enable the Secretary to submit its report.
Page 14 of 15
2026:MLHC:814-DB
25. The appeal is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid
terms.
26. List this appeal for recording compliance on 15th
September, 2026.
27. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(W. Diengdoh) (Revati Mohite Dere)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
04.08.2026
"Lam DR-PS"
Signature Not Verified Page 15 of 15
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.08.04 14:41:14 IST
